1
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
__________________________________________
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
by LETITIA JAMES, Attorney General
of the State of New York, COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
- against - Index No.
NOVA TECH LTD, NOVATECH ADVISORS, LLC,
AWS MINING PTY LTD, CYNTHIA PETION,
EDDY PETION, MARTIN ZIZI,
JAMES CORBETT, FRANTZ CICERON,
NOVAPAY, LLC, KINGS MULTI SERVICES
AGENCY LLC, TRINITY OF SUCCESS,
POSITIVE VISION MARKETING, LLC
Defendants.
__________________________________________
Plaintiff, People of the State of New York, by its attorney, Letitia James, Attorney
General of the State of New York (“OAG” or “Plaintiff”), alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Defendants Cynthia Petion and her husband Eddy Petion (together, “Defendants
Petion”) defrauded thousands of investors worldwide out of over a billion dollars by promoting
two consecutive fraudulent investment schemes. The first was a fraudulent investment scheme
called AWS Mining PTY LTD (“AWS Mining”) and the second even larger fraud was called
NovaTechFx (“NovaTech”). Each was a pyramid scheme where promoters who invested in the
scheme earned cryptocurrency for recruiting others to do the same. NovaTech was also a Ponzi
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
1 of 62
2
scheme where investors were promised profits from cryptocurrency trading but were paid from
the cryptocurrency assets of other investors.
2. Defendants carried out their schemes by also engaging in an affinity fraud which
targeted investors of Haitian descent, promoting the schemes to investors in the Creole language,
and preying on their victims’ religious faith. The victims trusted Defendants, most of whom
came from the Haitian community themselves.
3. Defendants marketed to investors most in need of income and least able to afford
a loss by advertising their schemes as a train to “financial freedom” and “freedom from the
plantation.” Defendant Cynthia Petion knew that “[i]t’s never the ones who grew up rich who
invest in these programs...”
I. AWS Mining
4. Defendant AWS Mining was a fraudulent scheme which guaranteed a 200%
return on investment (“ROI”) from mining cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency mining is a process
by which specialized computers verify transactions in cryptocurrency and generate new
cryptocurrency. From approximately 2017 to 2019, Defendants Petion, and Defendants James
Corbett (“Corbett”), Martin Zizi (“Zizi”), and Frantz Ciceron (“Ciceron”) promoted AWS
Mining by promising 15-20% monthly returns and 200% returns on investment in 13-15 months.
AWS Mining rewarded its participants for recruiting new investors (or “downlines”), by
awarding them 10% of amounts invested by their downlines, additional bonuses, and ceremonial
titles. The more investors recruited, the more grandiose the promoter title. Investors had to
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
2 of 62
3
purchase a mining contract to be eligible to receive recruitment bonuses. AWS Mining was an
illegal pyramid scheme.
5. Defendant AWS Mining’s promises of guaranteed 200% returns were fraudulent
and its scheme was unsustainable, because, according to Defendant Cynthia Petion, AWS
Mining paid returns and bonuses that were too high for too long. AWS Mining did not generate
sufficient returns from mining to pay the promised monthly profits and lucrative recruitment
commissions. By April 2019 the scheme collapsed, with the majority of investors losing most of
their investments, and by August of 2019 AWS Mining ceased to exist.
II. NovaTech
6. After the collapse of AWS Mining, Defendants Petion decided to start their own
scheme, and by August of 2019, they founded and promoted what was to become an even larger
investment fraud called NovaTech. Through NovaTech, Defendants defrauded hundreds of
thousands of investors, including at least 11,000 New Yorkers, with Defendants Corbett, Zizi,
and Ciceron rising as NovaTech’s top promoters.
7. NovaTech promised to generate profits primarily from trading cryptocurrency and
currency pairs on the foreign exchange or “forex” using NovaTech’s own trading platform. Like
in AWS Mining, NovaTech paid lucrative bonuses to promoters for recruiting new investors. It
too was an illegal pyramid scheme.
8. Defendants preyed upon the same victims of AWS Mining when recruiting for
NovaTech, capitalizing on the exclusion of these communities from traditional markets.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
3 of 62
4
Defendant Cynthia Petion wrote in one of her many private communications to Defendant Zizi:
“Man, [investors] were HEATED when AWS closed lol. But who else are they going to go to?”
9. Upon establishing NovaTech, Defendant Cynthia Petion rebranded herself as
“Reverend CEO,” called NovaTech’s founders “the visionaries behind NovaTech,” and
proclaimed to investors that NovaTech was God’s vision. However, in private chats with
Defendant Zizi, Cynthia Petion called herself the “Zookeeper,” her investors “a cult,” and
rejected Zizi’s suggestion that NovaTech was like a country club: “In a club people know what
they are signing up for” while in NovaTech “people join and follow mindlessly… They don’t
think. They just agree with everything you say.”
10. While praising the “vision” of NovaTech, Defendant Zizi wrote to Defendant
Cynthia Petion: “Some people will never see the vision you see in NovaTech… Focus and
recruit the visionaries.” Defendant Cynthia Petion replied: “They see it when you drive by in
that Bentley.”
11. Defendants falsely marketed NovaTech as “a registered hedge fund broker” and a
financial advisor, fraudulently misrepresented that NovaTech was licensed to trade
cryptocurrency in the U.S. and forex abroad, advertised consistent profits from trading of
approximately 2-4% per week (over 140% per year), and promised that investors could withdraw
their capital and profits at any time. NovaTech promised “easy” income with weekly ROI as
advertised, for example, below is an image that was posted on the NovaTech FX Official
Telegram channel on November 21, 2022:
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
4 of 62
5
12. But Defendants’ representations about NovaTech were materially false and
misleading. NovaTech was not licensed by any regulatory entity in the U.S. or abroad and did
not generate profits from trading sufficient to pay the announced weekly ROI or recruitment
bonuses.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
5 of 62
6
13. Investors deposited over one billion dollars’ worth of cryptocurrency with
NovaTech from August 2019 through April 2023. But only a fraction -- less than $26 million in
total -- was ever traded on NovaTech’s trading platform.
14. Yet, throughout the entirety of the scheme, NovaTech announced and paid to
investors positive weekly ROI, even when cryptocurrency markets around the world uniformly
plunged in the spring of 2022. On the NovaTech portal, investor account balances continued to
grow and compound, reaching over three billion dollars by May 5, 2023, and bearing no relation
to the real dollar value of investor cryptocurrency held by NovaTech.
15. In June 2022, Defendants Petion secretly sold their house in Florida and fled to
Panama. Defendant Cynthia Petion wanted “everyone to still think we’re in FL,” and told
Defendant Zizi to “leave the country…they can’t serve you if they can’t find you lol.” Shortly
after Defendants Petion left the U.S., the NovaTech scheme began to unravel.
16. In the fall of 2022, Canadian and U.S. state securities regulators served cease and
desist orders on NovaTech for selling and promoting unregistered securities and for fraud. By
December 2022, a growing number of investors requested to withdraw their funds from
NovaTech.
17. Unable to keep up with payments to investors, in February 2023, NovaTech
halted all withdrawals from investors’ “trading” accounts, and in May 2023, closed NovaTech to
U.S. and Canadian investors. NovaTech failed to return cryptocurrency deposited by investors
and tens of thousands of investors were left with hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
6 of 62
7
18. Defendants Petion transferred tens of millions of dollars’ worth of cryptocurrency
out of NovaTech.
19. Defendants Zizi, Corbett, and Ciceron, individually and through their entities,
made off with millions of dollars in recruitment payments and profits.
20. Defendants’ scheme to defraud investors by luring them into AWS Mining and
their scheme to defraud investors by founding and selling investments in NovaTech, including
their material misstatements and omissions, constitute fraudulent practices in violation of New
York General Business Law (“GBL”) Article 23-A, §§ 352 et seq. (the “Martin Act”).
Defendants promoted or granted participation in AWS Mining and NovaTech, which were illegal
pyramid schemes, known in New York as chain distributor schemes, in violation of GBL § 359-
fff. Defendants fraudulently offered or sold securities in AWS Mining and NovaTech while
unregistered in violation of GBL § 359-e. Additionally, Defendants Zizi and Ciceron illegally
used the term “university” while promoting NovaTech in violation of Education Law § 224.
Defendants’ repeated fraudulent and illegal acts in the carrying on, conducting, and transacting
of business violated New York Executive Law § 63(12).
21. This action seeks, inter alia, an order permanently enjoining Defendants from
engaging in deceptive, fraudulent and illegal acts and practices in violation of the Martin Act and
Executive Law; from engaging in any business relating to the issuance, advertisement, or sale of
securities or commodities in New York; from participation in any chain distributor schemes or
multi-level marketing companies; from serving as directors or officers of any company doing
business in New York; and directing Defendants to pay restitution, disgorgement and damages.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
7 of 62
8
PARTIES
22. Plaintiff is the People of the State of New York by Letitia James, the Attorney
General of the State of New York. Plaintiff is authorized to bring this action and to assert the
causes of action set forth below in the name and on behalf of the People of the State of New
York pursuant to the Martin Act and Executive Law § 63(12).
23. Defendant Nova Tech Ltd (also referred to as “NovaTechFx” or “NovaTechFX”),
was registered on September 26, 2019 in St. Vincent and the Grenadines as a “business
company.” Nova Tech Ltd’s registered agent was Wilfred Services Ltd. with a mailing address
of P.O. Box 1510, Suite 305, Griffith Corporate Centre, Beachmont, Kingstown, St. Vincent and
the Grenadines. Nova Tech Ltd’s registration was cancelled by the St. Vincent and the
Grenadines Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) as of January 30, 2023, due to the resignation
of the registered agent on record. Defendant Cynthia Petion was the sole director, shareholder,
and beneficial owner of Nova Tech Ltd and controlled Nova Tech Ltd.
24. Defendant NovaTech Advisors, LLC was a Florida limited liability company with
a principal place of business of 1825 Northwest Corporate Boulevard, #110, Boca Raton, Florida
33431. NovaTech Advisors, LLC was registered in Florida on July 25, 2019. The Florida
Department of State administratively dissolved NovaTech Advisors, LLC on September 22,
2023, for failure to file an annual report by April 2023. Defendants Petion were managers of
NovaTech Advisors, LLC and owned and controlled NovaTech Advisors, LLC.
25. Defendant NovaPay, LLC was a Florida limited liability company with a principal
place of business of 1825 Northwest Corporate Boulevard, #110, Boca Raton, Florida 33431.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
8 of 62
9
NovaPay, LLC was registered in Florida on June 5, 2017. The Florida Department of State
administratively dissolved NovaPay, LLC on September 22, 2023, for failure to file an annual
report by April 2023. Defendants Petion owned and controlled Defendant NovaPay, LLC.
According to Defendants Petion, Defendant Nova Tech Ltd was a subsidiary of Defendant
NovaPay, LLC.
26. Defendant Cynthia Petion is NovaTech’s co-founder and Chief Executive Officer
overseeing the company’s operations. Prior to NovaTech, Defendant Cynthia Petion was a
promoter at AWS Mining, where she held the highest ceremonial title of President, to reflect her
level of success in recruiting new investors. From 2017 through 2023, Defendant Cynthia Petion
was a resident of the country of Panama and the State of Florida. Defendant Cynthia Petion
currently resides in Panama.
27. Defendant Eddy Petion is NovaTech’s co-founder and Chief Operating Officer
overseeing daily operations and trading for client accounts. Prior to NovaTech, Defendant Eddy
Petion was a promoter at AWS Mining, where he also held the highest ceremonial title of
President, to reflect his level of success in recruiting new investors. From 2017 through 2023,
Defendant Eddy Petion was a resident of the country of Panama and the State of Florida.
Defendant Eddy Petion is Defendant Cynthia Petion’s husband. Defendant Eddy Petion owns
real property in West Islip, New York. Defendant Eddy Petion currently resides in Panama.
28. Defendant Frantz Ciceron was a promoter of AWS Mining and NovaTech. He
held the ceremonial title of Director at AWS Mining and the highest ceremonial title of Two-Star
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
9 of 62
10
Ambassador at NovaTech, to reflect his level of success in recruiting new investors. Defendant
Ciceron is a resident of the State of New York.
29. Defendant Kings Multi Services Agency LLC (“Kings Multi Services Agency”) is
owned by Defendant Ciceron and is located in Brooklyn, New York. Kings Multi Services
Agency had an account with NovaTech and held the highest ceremonial title of a Two-Star
Ambassador to reflect Defendant Ciceron’s level of success in recruiting new investors to sign
up under the account of his entity. Defendant Kings Multi Service Agency received funds from
NovaTech for the benefit of Defendant Ciceron. Defendant Kings Multi Services Agency is
Defendant Ciceron’s alter ego.
30. Defendant James Corbett was a promoter of AWS Mining and NovaTech.
Defendant Corbett held the ceremonial title of Director at AWS Mining and the highest
ceremonial title of a Two-Star Ambassador at NovaTech, to reflect his level of success in
recruiting new investors. Defendant Corbett operated a now-defunct website,
yourprofitservant.com, where he promoted various multi-level marketing enterprises, including
NovaTech. Defendant Corbett is a resident of the State of New York.
31. Defendant Martin Zizi was a promoter of AWS Mining and NovaTech. Through
his entity Defendant Trinity of Success Club, Inc., Defendant Zizi held the highest ceremonial
title of a Two-Star Ambassador at NovaTech, to reflect this level of success in recruiting new
investors. Defendant Zizi is a resident of the State of Georgia and a former resident of the State
of New York. Defendant Zizi owns real property in Queens County, New York.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
10 of 62
11
32. Defendant Trinity of Success Club, Inc. (“Trinity of Success”) is owned by
Defendant Zizi and is registered in the State of Georgia. Defendant Trinity of Success had an
account with NovaTech and held the highest ceremonial title of Two-Star Ambassador to reflect
Defendant Zizi’s level of success in recruiting new investors to sign up under the account of his
entity. Defendant Trinity of Success received funds from NovaTech for the benefit of Defendant
Zizi. Defendant Trinity of Success is Defendant Zizi’s alter ego.
33. Defendant Positive Vision Marketing, LLC (“Positive Vision Marketing”) is
owned by Defendant Zizi and is registered in the State of Georgia. Defendant Positive Vision
Marketing had an account with NovaTech and held the ceremonial title of One-Star Ambassador
to reflect Defendant Zizi’s level of success in recruiting new investors to sign up under the
account of his entity. Defendant Positive Vision Marketing received funds from NovaTech for
the benefit of Defendant Zizi. Defendant Positive Vision Marketing is Defendant Zizi’s alter
ego.
34. Defendant AWS Mining Pty Ltd. was an Australian organization and a business
name holder for Automated Web Services Mining (together “AWS Mining”). AWS Mining was
co-founded by Daniel Beduschi and Alexandre Campos and located at Level 57, MLC Centre,
19-29 Martin Place, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia. AWS Mining appears to have ceased to
exist in August 2019 and no longer owns its website domain at www.awsmining.com.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
11 of 62
12
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
35. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, personal
jurisdiction over the Defendants, and authority to grant the relief requested pursuant to the
Martin Act and Executive Law § 63(12).
36. The Martin Act authorizes the Attorney General to commence a civil action
seeking restitution, disgorgement, damages, and other relief in connection with fraudulent
practices relating to the issuance, exchange, purchase, sale, promotion, negotiation,
advertisement, investment advice, or distribution of securities or commodities within or from
New York State.
37. Executive Law § 63(12) authorizes the Attorney General to commence a civil
action or proceeding seeking restitution, damages, injunctive relief, and costs when any person
has engaged in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or has otherwise demonstrated persistent fraud
or illegality in the carrying on, conducting, or transacting of business.
38. Pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 503 venue is proper in New York County because the
OAG’s office is located in New York County and at least 270 investors from this county invested
with NovaTech.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I. Defendants Promoted the AWS Mining Fraudulent Investment Scheme
39. Defendant AWS Mining was incorporated in Australia in or around May 2017, by
foreign nationals Daniel Beduschi and Alexandre Campos. AWS Mining’s website
https://awsmining.com invited investors to “[e]arn daily passive income by participating in one
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
12 of 62
13
of the world’s biggest and most profitable crypto mining operation (sic)!” A mining farm is a
facility which hosts and maintains specialized computers and hardware for mining
cryptocurrency.
40. Defendant AWS Mining and Defendants Petion, Corbett, Zizi, and Ciceron
promoted AWS Mining’s cryptocurrency mining contracts which entitled investors to profits
from cryptocurrency purportedly mined with the mining power they purchased. AWS Mining
promised to distribute monthly mining profits to investors and stated on its website that “your
contract is guaranteed to 200% return of purchase price.” Until returns equaled 200%, investors
were able to withdraw their monthly payments, but the original investment was locked on AWS
Mining’s platform and could not be withdrawn.
41. Defendants targeted unsophisticated investors, many of whom did not know about
cryptocurrency, its volatility, or risks. Defendants helped these investors, especially the elderly,
to create email accounts, open accounts with a cryptocurrency platform, such as Gemini or
Coinbase, purchase cryptocurrency on those platforms, and to transfer cryptocurrency from a
platform to AWS Mining.
42. All investors who purchased mining contracts were eligible to recruit new
investors, receive a 10% direct referral bonus for each new investor recruited and each new
investment made, and additional recruitment bonuses.
43. Defendants Petion each became top promoters in AWS Mining with the highest
ceremonial title of “President,” having recruited 200,000 investors who collectively invested at
least $10 million. Defendants Petion enticed others to recruit new investors by advertising that
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
13 of 62
14
payments for recruitment were much more lucrative than mining profits. In a May 21, 2018,
YouTube video titled Full Interview with AWS VP Cynthia Petion, Defendant Cynthia Petion,
bragged: “I [bought a] $2,000 plan, it’s made over $5,000 in mining bonuses … but it’s made
$300,000 in six months’ time in the affiliate [recruiting] program.” The video was viewed
hundreds of times.
44. Defendant AWS Mining prepared slide decks it made available through its
investor portal on its website. These slide decks contained promises about AWS Mining returns,
including 15% monthly returns, return of original investment in six months, and 200% returns in
13-14 months. Defendants Petion and Ciceron, Corbett and Zizi presented these slide decks to
prospective investors, repeating misrepresentations contained in them. For example, in a
YouTube video dated May 21, 2018, titled Full Interview with AWS VP Cynthia Petion,
Defendant Cynthia Petion called AWS Mining a “virtual ATM” and promised that “people can
make [a] ridiculous amount of passive income” including a monthly return of 15% and a 200%
return on investment. She stated that “with a $40 investment you can literally go on to make
hundreds or thousands of dollars a week, a day, it’s totally in your control.”
45. On February 17, 2019, Defendant Cynthia Petion presented the AWS Mining
slide deck to prospective investors at a conference organized by Defendant Ciceron in Brooklyn,
New York, promising a monthly return of 15% and a 200% return on investment. On or around
February 17, 2019, Defendant Cynthia Petion also hosted a meeting at her house in West Islip
where she promoted AWS Mining.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
14 of 62
15
46. Defendant Eddy Petion presented the AWS Mining slide deck to new investors,
including in New York on or around March 28, 2019, promising monthly returns of 15% and a
200% return on investment.
47. Defendants Petion recruited Defendant Corbett into AWS Mining in 2017. By
spring of 2019, Defendant Corbett received the ceremonial title of Director with his downlines
investing at least $500,000. Defendant Corbett presented the AWS Mining slide deck during
Zoom meetings he organized with potential investors, where he promised a monthly return of
15% and a 200% return on investment. Defendant Corbett participated in a WhatsApp group
chat with his downlines where he signed his WhatsApp messages with “AWS MINING [IS]
REAL MINING NOT FAKE MINING!!!!” (emphasis in original).
48. Defendant Ciceron joined AWS Mining in 2018 and by February 2019 received
the ceremonial title of Director with approximately 200 investors in his downline, mostly from
Haitian communities in New York and New Jersey. Collectively his downlines invested at least
$900,000 into the AWS Mining scheme.
49. Defendant Ciceron advertised AWS Mining in the Creole language on his weekly
business segments on Haiti Premiere Classe television in 2018 and 2019. On October 14, 2018,
for example, he told his viewers about a mining company which gave investors “a rate of 15%
per month,” and doubled their money in 14 to 15 months. He repeated those same statements in
his segment on January 6, 2019. When investors contacted Defendant Ciceron about the
investment, he directed them to AWS Mining.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
15 of 62
16
50. Defendant Ciceron also met with investors in person in his Brooklyn office and
presented the AWS slide deck to them, including the slides promising a monthly return of 15%
and a 200% return on investment. Ciceron helped some investors open an account with
cryptocurrency trading platforms and took them to their bank to help them transfer funds to these
platforms to facilitate their investments in AWS Mining.
51. Defendant Zizi promoted AWS Mining to investors through emails and Zoom
calls, where he presented slides promising a monthly return of 15% and a 200% return on
investment. Defendant Zizi recruited at least ten to fifteen investors into AWS Mining directly
and those investors recruited additional investors.
52. Defendants’ Petion, Corbett, Zizi, and Ciceron’s promises that AWS Mining
generated a 15% monthly return and 200% return on investments in 13 to 15 months from
mining cryptocurrency, as well as AWS Mining’s guarantee of 200% return on investment on its
website, to which these Defendants referred investors, were false. These investment returns were
not guaranteed, and many investors lost money. While repeatedly promising consistent high
returns, Defendants failed to inform investors about the risks inherent in their investment,
including that cryptocurrency is extremely volatile, that its price is subject to fluctuations
affecting the value of mining rewards, that miners face stiff competition, that mining is
expensive and can be unprofitable, or that they could lose their entire savings in the AWS
Mining scam.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
16 of 62
17
53. In April 2019, Defendant AWS Mining informed investors that it terminated
“unprofitable” mining contracts.
1
Most contracts were deemed “unprofitable,” and AWS Mining
stopped making the promised monthly payments to investors and refused to return their original
investment. According to Defendant Cynthia Petion, AWS Mining was using outdated mining
machines despite promising to use “the newest hardware,” and ran out of money because it “paid
too high revenues for too long.”
54. In a January 10, 2023, YouTube interview with Ponzi Patrol, Defendant Corbett
admitted that AWS Mining’s contract terms “basically … guaranteed x amount of money which
they shouldn’t have.”
55. Yet, Defendant AWS Mining blamed the termination of its contracts on a
purported fire which it claimed had burned down a Paraguay mining farm. In dramatic, and
coincidental, fashion while in the middle of giving an AWS Mining presentation in New York,
Defendant Eddy Petion received a phone call informing him about the supposed fire. A similar
scene occurred a few days later at a cryptocurrency conference in Dubai, attended by Defendants
Eddy Petion and Corbett, where a cellphone video of the purported fire was shown. Defendant
Eddy Petion acted surprised by the news of the fire even though he had already heard and
announced it days earlier in New York.
1
AWS Mining defined an “unprofitable” contract as a contract where “the Service Fee is higher
than the value of the Cryptocurrency mined under the [Mining] Contract for a period of sixty
(60) consecutive calendar days.” This was a nonsensical definition as the “Service Fee means
20% of the Cryptocurrency Mined pursuant to this contract.” Because Service Fee is defined as
a percentage of the Cryptocurrency Mined, it cannot be higher than the value of cryptocurrency
mined.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
17 of 62
18
56. Investors and even some promoters accused Defendant AWS Mining of breaking
promises of guaranteed returns. As one promoter wrote on April 30, 2019, in a WhatsApp group
chat with other AWS Mining promoters, “We always sold AWS on the basis of an ROI of 200%.
Profitability was not in question. I don’t think we’d have grown the teams we have had we
quoted ‘as long as its profitable.’”
57. After Defendant AWS Mining failed, investors turned to top promoters for
answers. An investor from Defendant Corbett’s WhatsApp group chat wrote: “James, we ask
you all this question cox you use to tell us AWS real Mining not Fake Mining (sic).” Defendants
Petion, Corbett, Zizi, and Ciceron disclaimed any responsibility for misleading investors,
claiming that they themselves were merely investors in the scheme. Yet Defendants Ciceron,
Zizi, and Corbett made tens of thousands, and Defendant Cynthia Petion made $3 million from
AWS Mining, mostly from recruitment bonuses, while most investors recruited by them lost
almost the entirety of their investments.
58. For example, a retiree from Stamford, CT, who learned about AWS Mining from
Defendant Ciceron’s segment on Haitian TV, met Defendant Ciceron in his Brooklyn office to
consult about the advertised AWS Mining investment. During the meeting, Ciceron advised him
that AWS Mining was a better investment than his 401K, with higher returns and a guaranteed
200% return on investment. The investor moved almost $38,000 of his retirement savings and
$6,000 of his wife’s savings into AWS Mining in January and February 2019. The investor also
attended a Brooklyn meeting on February 17, 2019 where Cynthia Petion presented about AWS
Mining. The investor was able to withdraw $5,800 in March of 2019 (13.5% of his total
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
18 of 62
19
investment) but was unable to withdraw anything more thereafter. As a result of AWS Mining’s
collapse, he and his wife lost the remainder of their investment.
59. A New York investor who invested $119,000 was similarly promised a 200%
return and 12% monthly payments. He received two monthly returns in February and March of
2019, but none thereafter, and on June 1, 2019, was informed via email that his mining contract
was cancelled. He lost the rest of his investment.
60. Another New York family of a retired school bus driver on disability invested
approximately $200,000 into AWS Mining and were told that the money would double in 14-16
months. The family received monthly payments on their investment until April 2019 and lost the
remainder.
61. Defendant Ciceron summarized a private conversation between himself and
Defendant Cynthia Petition about the failure of AWS Mining as follows:
So I did ask her in the meeting who was the genius behind the
compensation program? If they’re paying ten percent to almost
everybody, how did they expect the company to survive because if
you take a hundred from me and in 13 months you’re going to give
me two hundred, but you pay almost everything in commissions,
so what was going to work and how that was going to work? And
she said …they were competing against a lot of scams, so they had
to come up with something more appealing to the masses in order
to sell AWS Mining. And I’m like, oh, okay, then this was
destined to fail.
II. Defendants Engaged in and Promoted the Fraudulent NovaTech Investment
Scheme
62. In the wake of the AWS Mining collapse, in June 2019, Defendants Petion
conceived of a new fraudulent scheme of their own called “NovaTechFx” or “NovaTech,” which
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
19 of 62
20
they launched in August of 2019. Having learned from AWS Mining, they advertised returns
averaging 2-4% per week from forex and cryptocurrency trading, along with lucrative returns for
recruiting new investors. NovaTech re-victimized many investors who joined hoping to recover
their losses from AWS Mining.
A. The Structure of the NovaTech Scheme
63. Defendants Petion and Defendant Cynthia Petion’s brother and NovaTech’s Chief
Technology Officer (“CTO”) were the founders and the “visionaries” behind NovaTech.
Defendants Petion lured investors by promising profits from trading their cryptocurrency and
touting themselves as “some of the Industry’s Top Leading Professionals worldwide.”
64. According to the NovaTech website, Defendant Cynthia Petion was “responsible
for creating, planning, implementing and integrating the strategic direction of [NovaTech]…and
overseeing the company’s overall operations,” including NovaTech’s finances. Defendant
Cynthia Peition, however, did not disclose to investors her financial history, including her
personal bankruptcy in 2011 and various lawsuits filed by creditors due to her failure to pay her
debts between 2017 and 2019.
65. According to the NovaTech website, Defendant Eddy Petion oversaw “daily
operations and trading for client accounts” including managing “investment and trading
programs,” despite having no experience in trading client assets.
66. NovaTech’s CTO was responsible for managing NovaTech’s information
technology and trading technology, including securing a software license for NovaTech’s trading
platform. He also worked with software developers on developing and maintaining the
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
20 of 62
21
NovaTech website, which ultimately facilitated the transfer of over one billion dollars of
investors’ cryptocurrency to NovaTech.
67. In furtherance of her scheme, Defendant Cynthia Petion rebranded herself as
“Reverend CEO” and filled her NovaTech videos and Zoom calls with references to religion.
She proclaimed that “Jesus was … the best affiliate marketer in the world” and declared that “the
idea to form Nova Tech came to me in a vision, a message from God…” and that “literally this
came to me while brushing my teeth because [God] likes to speak to me when he thinks I am
listening.”
68. Defendant Zizi reinforced the idea of Defendant Cynthia Petion being a
“visionary” and a hero to his downlines and even likened her to Harriot Tubman freeing people
from slavery: “Remember that Novatech has opened the door to financial freedom for us.
Cynthia had a vision that has turned into reality and has helped thousands to see the light and
follow the [trading platform to financial freedom] … Cynthia is our Harriett [Tubman] and
through her vision has created ways within the wilderness.”
69. Some investors learned about NovaTech during prayer meetings from trusted
religious leaders. Defendants Zizi and Ciceron promoted regular prayer meetings for their
NovaTech downlines under the NovaTech logo using fliers which claimed that “A team that
prays together stays together & grows together.” An example of one such flier is set forth below:
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
21 of 62
22
70. Defendants’ recruiting efforts proved highly successful and, in 2022, according to
Defendant Cynthia Petion, NovaTech doubled in size every sixty days. From August 2019,
through April 2023, over 200,000 investors, including at least 11,000 from New York State, had
transferred over one billion dollars in cryptocurrency to NovaTech.
71. Defendants Petion and NovaTech operated the website www.novatechfx.io and
subsequently www.novatechfx.com. Defendants Petion drafted the contents of the NovaTech
website which advertised NovaTech as a “Forex & Crypto Trading Platform” that promised
“Weekly Payouts.”
72. After opening an account with NovaTech through its website, investors could
invest any amount of cryptocurrency for “trading,” but NovaTech incentivized them to invest
more by waiving monthly service fees: investments from $99 to $24,999 incurred a $25 monthly
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
22 of 62
23
fee, while investments over $25,000 incurred no monthly fee. The dollar amount of
cryptocurrency deposited by investors with NovaTech was reflected in their “trading” accounts
on the NovaTech investor portal accessed through the NovaTech website.
73. In actuality, NovaTech directed investors through its website to send their
cryptocurrency, intended for trading by NovaTech, to a payment processor that did not trade
cryptocurrency for NovaTech but merely stored it in NovaTech’s wallets.
74. Defendants represented to investors that NovaTech pooled their cryptocurrency
and that its “experienced team of traders”
traded it on NovaTech’s own trading platform.
NovaTech’s trading platform was a trading software called “White Label MetaTrader 5” which
NovaTech licensed from Prime Brokerage Services, doing business as B2Broker (“B2Broker”).
NovaTech exercised total discretion over investor cryptocurrency and promised investors
consistent passive income and that they could “earn without having to trade…No experience
needed.”
Defendants Petion decided how much, if any, investor cryptocurrency was traded on
the NovaTech trading platform.
75. NovaTech represented that it calculated its trading profits on a weekly basis and
that it retained 30% of the weekly profits as a “performance fee”
and divided the remaining 70%
among investors. Every Friday on its investor portal NovaTech posted ROI purportedly derived
from weekly trading profits for the prior week. Every Saturday, NovaTech posted recruitment
bonuses on the same investor portal, which NovaTech claimed were paid out of its 30% share of
the weekly trading profits.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
23 of 62
24
76. Weekly ROI and commissions for recruiting new investors were added on
NovaTech’s investor portal into investors’ “bonus” accounts. Investors could reinvest their
funds from the “bonus” accounts by moving them into their “trading” account, known as
“compounding,” or withdraw them into an outside cryptocurrency wallet. Starting in the fall of
2022, investors could choose to automatically direct their weekly bonus into their “trading”
account.
77. Defendants’ key selling point was that, unlike other similar investment schemes,
including AWS Mining, NovaTech allowed investors to withdraw any amount of their funds,
including their original investment, at any time. Cynthia Petion touted that “access to your
capital” was “the crown jewel of NovaTech.”
78. NovaTech promoters received referral bonuses for recruiting new investors. They
were also given ceremonial titles that reflected the amount of money they convinced others to
invest. These ceremonial titles ranged from Platinum Associate, with $25,000 in downline
investments to 2-Star Ambassador with downline investments of $100,000,000.
79. Defendants used social media such as Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, Telegram
groups, and Zoom meetings, in-person meetings, and other means to promote NovaTech.
Defendants Petion created slide decks describing the NovaTech investment and marketing
scheme and uploaded them to the NovaTech investor portal on the NovaTech website together
with various other information about the company, including the weekly performance reports.
Defendants Zizi, Corbett, and Ciceron used these slide decks and the weekly performance reports
to recruit new investors without modifying them and presented them “as is” because, according
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
24 of 62
25
to Defendant Cynthia Petion, “how you say things and the verbiage that’s used is extremely
important.” During their training sessions aimed at recruiting new investors, Defendants
Ciceron, Zizi, and Corbett repeated all the misstatements contained in the slide decks.
80. Defendant Zizi, one of the top promoters of NovaTech, opened an account in his
name and two additional accounts for the entities he owned and controlled, and strategically
placed recruited investors under his three accounts to maximize his recruitment bonuses.
Defendant Zizi received all the ROI payments and recruitment bonuses awarded to his entities by
NovaTech. Through this design, his entity Defendant Trinity of Success became a Two-Star
Ambassador, his entity Defendant Positive Vision Marketing became a One-Star Ambassador,
and together with the account in his own name, they signed up approximately 140,000 investors
into NovaTech, including investors from New York. These investors deposited millions of
dollars’ worth of cryptocurrency with NovaTech.
81. Defendant Zizi operated a WhatsApp chat group called Trinity of Success, which
included approximately 500 investors in his downline, many of whom, in turn, operated their
own WhatsApp chat groups, passing on information Defendant Zizi conveyed to them through
his chat.
82. Defendant Ciceron was recruited by Defendant Zizi and quickly became one of
the top promoters himself. Like Defendant Zizi, Defendant Ciceron opened an additional
account for the entity he owned and controlled, Defendant Kings Multi Services Agency, which
became a Two-Star Ambassador. Defendant Ciceron received all the ROI payments and
recruitment bonuses that NovaTech awarded to Defendant Kings Multi Services Agency.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
25 of 62
26
Together with his entity, Defendant Ciceron recruited over 60,000 investors into NovaTech.
Defendant Ciceron operated a WhatsApp chat for his group where he communicated with his
downlines. Defendant Zizi received indirect referral bonuses for each of Defendant Ciceron’s
recruits.
83. Defendant Corbett had over 100,000 investors in his downline, with whom he
communicated through his weekly Zoom training sessions.
84. In 2021 and 2022, Defendants Zizi and Ciceron hosted Zoom meetings for new
investors twice a week in English and Creole, where they presented NovaTech’s slide deck and
all the misstatements contained therein. These Zoom meetings were recorded and circulated on
Defendant Zizi’s WhatsApp group chat.
85. Defendants Zizi and Ciceron used fliers with their likeness, like the one below, to
advertise their Zoom meetings:
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
26 of 62
27
86. Defendant Zizi promised to teach his downlines during these weekly Zoom
meetings “how to become a multi millionaire.” Similarly, Defendant Ciceron, advertised these
Zoom meetings by promising to “do a SPECIAL TRAINING ON HOW TO MAKE IT TO 2
STAR AMBASSADOR AND BECOME A millionaire.” He called on his team to invite new
investors: “IF YOU WANT TO BUILD A BIG TEAM, YOU MUST INVITE!!! IF YOU
WANT TO BECOME FINANCIALLY FREE, YOU MUST INVITE!! IF YOU WANT TO
BECOME THE 1
ST
MILLIONAIRE IN YOUR FAMILY, INVITE, INVITE … NEW GUESTS
TO THE MEETINGS…IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE A LEGACY, YOU MUST INVITE!!!”
(emphasis in original).
87. From March 2021 through the end of 2022, Defendants Zizi and Ciceron also held
a weekly session called “University of Trinity of Success,” which they advertised together with
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
27 of 62
28
the NovaTech training sessions. The goal of this “crypto University” was to “change lay person
(sic) into educated crypto folks” and to “educate” investors about NovaTech. For example,
Defendant Zizi stated in his WhatsApp chat to his downlines on August 21, 2021: “One leader
asked us last week during our University class, how to maximize the potential with Novatech?
We will be answering the multiple facets of this question today and tomorrow in our University
classes. Bring your new recruits to learn. Remember [LEARN=L+EARN].” Defendants Zizi
and Ciceron did not possess a special charter from the legislature or the regents of the State of
New York to use the name “university.”
B. Defendants Made Material Misstatements and Omissions to Promote
NovaTech as a Legitimate Business
88. Defendant Cynthia Petion was aware that trading cryptocurrency on behalf of
investors required registration and shared with AWS Mining promoters in an April 15, 2019,
WhatsApp chat that “SEC is not a fan of our business model. They don’t like that we sell in
pools, and that AWS controls which coins to mine, how much, etc.”
89. To assure investors that their new scheme was legitimate and compliant with all
applicable laws, Defendants made material misstatements about NovaTech’s licenses and
registrations.
90. From 2020 through January 2022, NovaTech’s slide deck stated that NovaTech
was a “legally registered Hedge Fund company.” Defendant Cynthia Petion continued to
misrepresent NovaTech as a registered hedge fund through at least June 22, 2022, including in a
January 12, 2022, YouTube video NovaTech New Year Zoom, and a June 22, 2022, YouTube
video NovaTechFX CEO Cynthia Petion Breaks It Down.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
28 of 62
29
91. Defendants Zizi, Ciceron, and Corbett presented the same NovaTech slide decks
to potential NovaTech investors during their weekly Zoom meetings and misrepresented that
NovaTech was a registered hedge fund. Additionally, in a video uploaded on YouTube on
February 20, 2022, titled James Corbett on NovaTech, Defendant Corbett stated that NovaTech
was a “licensed hedge broker.” That video was viewed at least 1,700 times.
92. Defendants’ statements that NovaTech was a “registered hedge fund company” or
a “registered hedge fund broker” or a “licensed hedge fund broker” were materially false and
misleading. NovaTech had no licenses or registrations to solicit investments or to trade on
behalf of investors and was not registered with FINRA, the SEC, or any state securities
regulators.
93. Defendant NovaTech and Defendants Petion also misrepresented NovaTech
Advisors, LLC’s registration with the Florida Secretary of State as a “license” to do business as
an investment adviser or as a financial advisor. In a 2019 YouTube video titled NovaTech
Leader Discussion with Early Leaders, Defendant Cynthia Petion stated that “we have the U.S.
entity which is NovaTech Advisors and that is … what makes us a hedge fund company which
allows us to be able to give financial advice.”
94. From at least October 23, 2020, through July 16, 2022, NovaTech’s website
falsely represented that NovaTech Advisors, LLC was registered in Florida as an “Investment
Advisor.”
95. However, the registration with the Florida Secretary of State was not a “license”
to do business as an investment adviser or a financial advisor. NovaTech Advisors, LLC was not
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
29 of 62
30
registered as an investment adviser in Florida or anywhere else and Defendants’ statements to the
contrary were false.
96. In September 2022, after NovaTech raised hundreds of millions of dollars,
Defendant Cynthia Petion instructed promoters that, while NovaTech started as a hedge fund in
2019, it was no longer to be called a “hedge fund” because it did not “qualify” investors or
collect their information. Defendant Cynthia Petion also told investors that NovaTech was to be
called a “trading advisor,” while assuring investors that this change in title did not represent a
change in NovaTech’s operations.
97. Defendant NovaTech and Defendants Petion also misrepresented that NovaTech
was licensed to trade cryptocurrency in the U.S. and forex abroad. For example, in a January 5,
2020, YouTube video titled NovaTech CTO Interview on Trading Forex & Crypto, posted on the
NovaTech Official YouTube channel, NovaTech’s CTO, when interviewed by Defendants
Petion, falsely stated that NovaTech was licensed to trade cryptocurrency in the U.S.
Defendants Petion failed to correct the CTO and caused the video to be posted online. This
video was viewed over 64,000 times.
98. Defendant Corbett similarly stated in a February 20, 2022, YouTube video titled
James Corbett on NovaTech that:
NovaTech is licensed to do trading for you here in the United
States in crypto, not forex. The forex license they have is for
international people to get involved with the forex trade and
they’re licensed for forex trading in The Grenadines and in St.
Vincent’s and in the United States they’re licensed to do crypto
trading as a MetaTrader 5 crypto hedge broker.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
30 of 62
31
99. These statements were false. NovaTech was not licensed or registered with any
state or federal securities or commodity regulators in the U.S. to trade cryptocurrency for
investors.
100. Nor was NovaTech “licensed” to trade forex abroad. Nova Tech Ltd was
registered as a “business company” in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The FSA of St. Vincent
and the Grenadines does not license companies to engage in forex trading or brokerage and did
not issue forex or brokerage licenses to NovaTech. NovaTech was not licensed or registered to
trade forex elsewhere. Statements that NovaTech was licensed to trade forex outside of the U.S.
were false.
C. Defendants Made Material Misrepresentations About Trading and
Profits at NovaTech
101. Defendants advertised NovaTech as a trading platform that generated profits from
trading investors’ cryptocurrency. But that was false. In reality, from August 2019 through
April 2023, NovaTech took in over one billion dollars’ worth of investor cryptocurrency but the
vast majority of it remained in NovaTech’s wallets with the payment processor. Only a tiny
fraction, $26 million, was ever deposited by Defendants Petion with the NovaTech trading
platform for trading. The ROI posted weekly to investors’ accounts was entirely fabricated by
Defendants Petion. In Ponzi scheme fashion, the “profits” and recruitment bonuses NovaTech
paid to investors did not come from trading profits but from deposits of other investors.
1. Defendants misrepresented NovaTech’s trading profits
102. Defendants represented that NovaTech paid out returns on investments from the
weekly profits it generated primarily by trading investor cryptocurrency on the NovaTech trading
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
31 of 62
32
platform. For example, in a YouTube video dated April 7, 2021, titled ROI Training, posted on
NovaTech Official channel, Cynthia Petion stated that weekly profits or ROI were “based on
trading activity taking place during the week.” That video was viewed thousands of times.
103. Defendant Zizi similarly stated in a January 21, 2022, YouTube video titled
NovaTech FX: Presentation with Dr. Zizi and Pastor Bob, that “we only get paid on profit
made.” This video was viewed over a thousand times.
104. Defendant Corbett also stated in a May 12, 2022, video titled Why NovaTech is
the BEST opportunity in under 5 minutes by Global Ambassador James Corbett that NovaTech
“profits are generated through the… hedge fund…” In a January 10, 2023, YouTube interview
with Ponzi Patrol, Corbett similarly stated that NovaTech is “paying out of the trade profits that
they make each week.”
105. NovaTech promised that payments for recruiting new investors came from the
company’s share of the weekly trading profits. According to Defendant Zizi’s YouTube video
titled NovaTech FX: Presentation with Dr. Zizi and Pastor Bob, NovaTech “takes a percentage
of the trading generated every week” to pay for recruiting new investors.
106. Throughout the NovaTech scheme, Defendants emphasized consistency of returns
despite such consistency being at odds with live trading, especially in volatile cryptocurrency
and forex markets. In an April 7, 2021, YouTube video titled ROI Training, Defendant Cynthia
Petion explained that “our practice is to make sure that over a period of time that you have some
steady progression of income or profit.” Similarly, in a January 17, 2023 NovaTech New Year
2023 Zoom YouTube video, Defendant Cynthia Petion explained that “we pay consistently only
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
32 of 62
33
because people like consistency” and that NovaTech makes sure “that we provide profits so that
people don’t think … there’s something wrong.”
107. Defendants Ciceron, Zizi, and Corbett similarly marketed consistent returns,
promising investors weekly payouts, and downplaying any risk of loss. A flier promoting an
October 18, 2020 Zoom meeting for NovaTech featuring Defendants Zizi and Ciceron called on
prospective investors to “discover how to … earn DIVIDENDS every FRIDAY” (emphasis in
the original). On March 24, 2021, Defendant Zizi sent a WhatsApp chat to his downlines,
promising weekly “Friday PAY” “in your sleep” (emphasis in the original).
108. In a WhatsApp group chat on January 27, 2022, Defendant Zizi quizzed his
downlines: “How do I make 2500 a week…if I don’t want to sponsor anyone?” One investor
replied: “The answer is easy, invest $100,000 in average of 2.5% that will get you $2500 a
week.” Zizi responded: “Wow! Great! The group is learning. Fabulous…That is $10k a month.
Half way to becoming financially independent.”
109. Defendant Ciceron stated in a January 21, 2022 YouTube video titled NovaTech
Fx: Presentation with Dr. Zizi and Pastor Bob, that “we always [receive] two to three [percent]
and high threes, low threes, and when the market is bad too” and “we have never had even one
negative return.”
110. Defendant Corbett similarly stated in a February 2, 2022 YouTube video titled
James Corbett on NovaTech, that NovaTech paid “two to four percent roughly each week,” that
NovaTech had never had losses, that upon investing, “you’re immediately successful, never in
the red, always in the black,” and that “in this program everybody generates a profit day one.”
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
33 of 62
34
111. Similarly, in a January 5, 2020, YouTube interview titled NovaTech CTO
Interview on Trading Forex & Crypto, NovaTech’s CTO stated that while a loss of investment in
NovaTech “is always possible, the probability is highly unlikely.”
112. NovaTech publicized fake performance reports depicting purported weekly
trading profits on the investor portal on its website. Below is an example of a performance
report announcing 3.3% ROI for the week ending September 30, 2022. The bar graph depicts
only positive monthly returns ranging from 7.7% to 16% between February 2022 to September
2022, while the chart shows purported weekly trading profits for January 2022 to September
2022, again with only positive returns.
113. Defendants advertised that in over three years, NovaTech had never had even one
losing week. From October 2, 2020, through November 19, 2021, NovaTech reported that no
trading week yielded profits below 2.14%. During 2022, NovaTech continued to publicize
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
34 of 62
35
weekly profits averaging 2.84% yielding an annual return of 147% as compiled and disseminated
in January 2023 by one promoter and depicted below:
114. Meanwhile, in 2022 most major cryptocurrencies plunged during what many
described as the “crypto winter:” Bitcoin: -63%; Ether: -67%; Cardano: -80%; Solana: -93%; and
Terra: -100%.
115. Yet, Defendant Eddy Petion boasted in the January 17, 2023 NovaTech New Year
2023 Zoom, posted on the NovaTech Official YouTube Channel, that notwithstanding market
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
35 of 62
36
turmoil, NovaTech had never failed to pay a weekly ROI, stating that “we haven’t missed one
payment yet, not one, and I’ll leave it at that.” That video was viewed over 80,000 times.
116. Defendants’ statements about NovaTech’s consistent returns from trading and
profits were false. As stated above, NovaTech solicited over one billion dollars’ worth of
investor cryptocurrency but traded only $26 million dollars’ worth of cryptocurrency from
August 2019 through April 2023. The remainder of that billion dollars’ worth of cryptocurrency
sat in NovaTech’s wallets at a payment processor and was distributed at Defendant Cynthia
Petion’s direction either as payouts to investors and bonuses to promoters or for the benefit of
Defendants Petion. The graph below demonstrates the amount of investor cryptocurrency held in
NovaTech’s wallets with the payment processor over time as compared to the negligible amount
of cryptocurrency on NovaTech trading platform over that same time, with the traded amount
never exceeding $5 million at any given time and most weeks trading significantly less than
$500,000:
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
36 of 62
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
37 of 62
38
119. The week ending May 5, 2023, is illustrative. NovaTech announced ROI of
1.98% for that week. NovaTech’s internal ledger indicated that as of May 5, 2023, NovaTech
had over $3 billion of cryptocurrency in investors’ “trading” accounts from their deposits and
reinvested “profits.” To pay ROI on that amount, NovaTech would have needed to generate
trading profits for that week (after the deduction of 30% company profit share) of over $60
million. NovaTech never made $60 million from trading in any one week (or in total trading
over almost 4 years).
120. On March 17, 2023, B2Broker terminated NovaTech’s license to its trading
software. As a result, NovaTech ceased what little trading it did on its trading platform.
NovaTech concealed the loss of its trading platform and continued to announce weekly ROI:
Date Announced ROI
3/24/2023 2.80%
3/31/2024 2.63%
4/14/2023 0.05%
4/21/2023 2.68%
5
/
5/2023 1.98%
5/12/2023 0.03%
5/19/2023 0.03%
121. The ROI was entirely fabricated by Defendants Petion. They manually inputted
the fake weekly ROI percentage into NovaTech’s internal accounting software, which then
calculated and allocated ROI for each investor based on the balance in his “trading” account for
that week.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
38 of 62
39
122. To further perpetuate the fraud, Defendants Petions made it appear that the
weekly ROI was moving up and down together with the fluctuations in the performance of the
cryptocurrency markets, further misleading investors into believing that NovaTech actually
traded their cryptocurrency.
123. Additionally, NovaTech did not make weekly cryptocurrency withdrawals from
its trading platform to pay investors the announced weekly profits and only withdrew funds from
the trading platform a handful of times in almost four years. In reality, the funds used to pay
investors came from NovaTech’s wallets at its payment processor and were not profits from
trading but funds deposited by other investors.
2. Defendants misrepresented that a portion of NovaTech profits came
from cryptocurrency ATMs and debit card sales
124. Defendants misrepresented that NovaTech had other sources of income that
contributed to its weekly ROI. For example, Defendant Cynthia Petion informed NovaTech’s
top promoters in her WhatsApp group chat on September 18, 2021, that “as a hedge fund our
profits are generated from a number of different resources including multiple trading accounts,
ATM Profits, [debit] card sales, and crypto investments.”
125. Defendant Zizi repeated this message to his downlines in a WhatsApp chat the
same day.
126. During the New Year Zoom 2022 meeting on January 12, 2022, Defendant
Cynthia Petition stated that while cryptocurrency and forex trading were the main source of
profits, there were other sources of revenue, such as bitcoin ATMs in Florida, debit card
transactions, and mining.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
39 of 62
40
127. The NovaTech slide deck she presented on the same day and posted on the
NovaTech’s investor portal similarly stated that NovaTech’s products and services are “backed
by ATM’s, crypto and debit card transactions” in addition to cryptocurrency and forex trading.
128. Defendants Zizi, Corbett, and Ciceron repeated these statements every time they
presented NovaTech slide decks to new investors. These statements were materially false and
misleading.
129. NovaTech made no profits from cryptocurrency ATMs. Defendants Petion,
through their company SmartBit, purportedly licensed cryptocurrency ATMs, but SmartBit’s
website at https://www.smartbit.solutions/find-an-atm only listed one ATM location.
Cryptocurrency ATMs did not generate any profit for NovaTech’s monthly ROI.
130. Yet, Defendant Corbett stated that NovaTech’s crypto “ATM” machines were “up
and down the coast” of Florida and all were “generating profit for the company.” Defendant
Corbett has subsequently admitted to the OAG that ATM machines did not generate any profit
for NovaTech.
131. Similarly, Defendant Zizi admitted to the OAG that he did not know whether
cryptocurrency ATMs generated profits.
132. The debit card, which was supposed to be a pre-paid card funded by investors’
cryptocurrency on NovaTech’s platform, was launched on or around May 1, 2021, and
discontinued the following month on June 28, 2021, allegedly due to problems with a vendor.
The debit card also did not generate any profit for the company despite statements by Defendants
Cynthia Petion, Zizi, Ciceron, and Corbett to the contrary as late as January 2022. Defendants
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
40 of 62
41
Corbett and Zizi subsequently admitted to the OAG that the debit card did not generate any
profits.
D. Defendants Concealed That NovaTech Was an Illegal Ponzi Scheme on
the Verge of Collapse
1. Defendants falsely denied that NovaTech was a Ponzi scheme
133. The walls began to close in on NovaTech when a cryptocurrency platform,
Gemini, used by many investors to transfer cryptocurrency to NovaTech became suspicious in
the summer of 2021 of investors’ large and frequent transfers of cryptocurrency to NovaTech’s
payment processor. By February 2022, Gemini alerted customers that they were sending funds
to “a scam called NovaTechFX,” that NovaTech was a “Ponzi” scheme, that sending funds to
NovaTech from Gemini was not permissible, and that any transaction with NovaTech would
result in closure of the investor’s account. Below is a sample of one such email to a NovaTech
investor from Gemini on March 18, 2022:
Based on our review, it appears that you have fallen victim to an
investment scam by **Novatech**. These investment scams (also
known as “get rich quick” or “ponzi” schemes) can be rather
elaborate…If you would like to continue with **Novatech**
despite these warnings, we kindly ask that you withdraw your
funds from Gemini and please use a different platform.
134. Gemini froze assets of many investors who transferred and received
cryptocurrency to and from NovaTech. In response, Defendant Cynthia Petion suggested that
users whose accounts were frozen should find another platform because Gemini “doesn’t stop us
from doing what we do. We just find other people to do it with.”
135. Defendant Zizi advised his downlines to hide from the platforms that they were
transferring money to NovaTech. On January 27, 2022, he wrote in his WhatsApp group chat:
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
41 of 62
42
“When asked where the money is going…keep it vague…Remember we use a payment
processor. They have no idea where that payment processor is sending it. You can be funding a
housing project, buying a new car, or filling your swimming pool with bitcoin to swim in.”
136. Defendants Corbett, Zizi, and Ciceron went to great lengths to assure investors of
NovaTech’s legitimacy. They dismissed allegations that NovaTech was a fraud and a Ponzi
scheme and told investors to ignore all criticism of NovaTech as “fear, uncertainty, and doubt”
emanating from competitors, and some promoters appealed to the piety of their investors
proclaiming, “Faith over Fear!” Investors critical of NovaTech were summarily removed from
WhatsApp group chats.
137. Defendants continuously assured investors that NovaTech was not a fraud but a
“sustainable” program which paid its investors out of trading profits and not out of the funds of
other investors. For example, in a January 21, 2022, YouTube video titled NovaTech FX:
Presentation with Dr. Zizi and Pastor Bob, Defendant Zizi stated that “we only get paid on profit
made, it’s not a company that [is] paying Peter to pay Paul.”
138. In the same video, Defendant Ciceron advised investors “don’t let people who are
not here tonight attending the presentation to discourage you to say, oh it is a scam, oh it is a
pyramid.”
139. Similarly, in a May 12, 2022, video titled Why NovaTech is the BEST opportunity
in under 5 minutes by Global Ambassador James Corbett, Defendant Corbett denied that
NovaTech was a fraudulent scheme, stating that “it’s a self-sustainable vehicle, meaning that no
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
42 of 62
43
new money coming in is going to pay out anybody in profits; the profits are generated through
the… hedge fund…”
140. In a January 10, 2023, YouTube interview with Ponzi Patrol, Corbett similarly
stated that “they’re not running a Ponzi scheme, I know these people, I know they’re trading with
the funds.”
141. Defendants’ statements about sustainability of NovaTech and their denial that it
was a Ponzi scheme were materially false and misleading because NovaTech was, in fact, a
Ponzi scheme. Defendants Zizi, Ciceron, and Corbett had no basis for their representations to
investors that NovaTech generated profits and that ROI was paid from trading profits.
142. Defendants’ statements were no more based in fact or credible than the following
exchange recorded in a September 22, 2022 YouTube video, titled NovaTech CEO Cynthia
Petion Answers Questions, where Cynthia Petion suggested that an FBI agent prepared a 700-
page report regarding NovaTech’s legitimacy and gave NovaTech a clean bill of health:
Promoter: And the bottom line of that whole story is that after 700 pages they said yes,
the [FBI] investigator said this is a good company to move forward with and so we’re
really happy.
Cynthia Petion: Girl, you just messed up saying that because now everybody’s gonna
write support asking for that report, I don’t have it, don’t ask me, don’t come looking for
that report, I burned it … after I read the final, the bottom line, I was, like, oh, thank you
for telling me what I already know.
143. The video about the alleged but now destroyed FBI report declaring NovaTech “a
good company” was viewed almost 16,000 times.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
43 of 62
44
144. In late summer and fall of 2022, various securities regulators began to sound
alarms about the scheme. Mounting actions by regulators rattled investors who rushed to
withdraw their cryptocurrency from NovaTech.
145. NovaTech fell behind on payments and investors complained about long delays.
On January 26, 2023, Defendant Zizi told investors unable to withdraw to stop “whining”
because their money now belonged to NovaTech:
For those of you with 6 months and older … saying “MY
MONEY”. It is no longer “YOUR MONEY”, it is “THEIR
MONEY”. Now, you might say, I did not withdraw my seed
money. Well, that is your choice, you can withdraw it if you want
but you are the one who decided to leave it there…
2. NovaTech suspends withdrawals from “trading” accounts
146. On February 5, 2023, NovaTech announced on its investor portal that it was
suspending withdrawals from “trading” accounts until April 1, 2023. This “temporary freeze”
was intended to “protect our customers from making erratic decisions that can affect the integrity
of our program...” Nevertheless, NovaTech assured investors that its “business model is not only
strong, but completely sustainable into the unforeseeable future.” NovaTech reminded investors
that it “has always produced, performed, and paid every customer since its inception in June of
2019, regardless of the adversity we may have faced in every market condition in the last 4
years.”
147. On February 28, 2023, Defendant Ciceron stated in a WhatsApp chat to his group
that “Novatech is stronger than ever” and promised “[w]e have Novatech for many many more
years to come.”
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
44 of 62
45
148. Defendants’ statements that NovaTech was “strong” and “sustainable” were
materially false and misleading because NovaTech’s Ponzi scheme was collapsing. Around this
time, NovaTech’s payment processor held a total of approximately $94 million in investor funds
while NovaTech’s internal accounting of money owed to investors was approaching $3 billion.
149. NovaTech’s unilateral suspension of withdrawals from investors’ trading accounts
violated NovaTech’s key promise to investors that they would have access to their capital at all
times.
150. Investors voiced their immediate frustration. One investor wrote in Defendant
Ciceron’s WhatsApp group chat:
We did not sign up or agree to have funds in our Trading accounts
being held for 90 days or any period without access to it. This is
unlawful at most…I have school tuition that cannot wait until April
1st. This is horrible. Horrible. What prevents novatech to say the
same in April for another 90 days.
151. Defendants became increasingly desperate to secure additional investor assets.
To that end, Defendant Cynthia Petion stated in a Zoom message to promoters on or around
February 24, 2023, that NovaTech would pay new investor’s requests for withdrawal before
others, because such a tactic “also encourages the new people coming in to know that we are
paying.” Defendants’ strategy worked and from February 5, 2023, through March 21, 2023,
Novatech’s successfully convinced investors to deposit at least another $43.4 million with
NovaTech.
152. On April 1, 2023, the day NovaTech promised to resume withdrawals from
“trading” accounts in its February 5, 2023, announcement, NovaTech instead unilaterally
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
45 of 62
46
announced significant changes to its policies, including limiting times and amounts of bonus
withdrawals and limiting withdrawals from the “trading” accounts to 5% for April, 10% for May,
and 15% for June. However, to incentivize new recruitment, direct referral fees for recruiting
new investors were increased by 50%. This was an effort by the Defendants to perpetuate the
Ponzi scheme for as long as possible.
153. Investors were devastated. One investor wrote on Defendant Zizi’s WhatsApp
group chat on April 2, 2023: “This is a travesty…Hope we will have clearer directives as to
when withdrawal from trading can be made...Heaven help us.” Defendant Zizi was dismissive,
replying: “Heaven already helped you that the company decided to stay in business with some
adjustments. If Heaven was not helping you, you would have seen a company closure…You
make it sound like the sky is falling.”
3. NovaTech loses its trading platform
154. As a result of frequent inquiries and complaints about NovaTech, including
questions from U.S. regulators, on December 1, 2022, Nova Tech Ltd’s registered agent in St.
Vincent and the Grenadines resigned. Following its resignation, on January 30, 2023, the FSA
of St. Vincent and the Grenadines cancelled the registration of Nova Tech Ltd, which was the
licensee of NovaTech’s trading platform from B2Broker.
155. On March 17, 2023, after learning about various actions by the U.S. and Canadian
regulators and that NovaTech Ltd was no longer registered with the FSA, B2Broker terminated
NovaTech’s White Label MetaTrader 5 software agreement. On April 17, 2023, the owner of
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
46 of 62
47
MetaTrader 5, issued a cease-and-desist notice to NovaTech’s website host against NovaTech’s
use of the MetaTrader 5 trademark.
156. NovaTech had lost its license to use MetaTrader 5 and its trading software. Yet,
Defendants Petion continued to falsely market NovaTech as a “Forex & Crypto Trading
Platform” and a registered MetaTrader 5 broker through at least April 24, 2023, and failed to
inform investors that NovaTech no longer had a trading platform.
4. NovaTech causes devastating losses to investors
157. On May 12, 2023, NovaTech suspended all new accounts in the U.S. and Canada,
which made up the majority of its investors. In addition, NovaTech continued to restrict
withdrawals from trading accounts and in June 2023, allowed requests for withdrawal of only
5% instead of 15% as promised on April 1, 2023. In response to Defendant Zizi’s question
asking what to tell his downlines, Defendant Cynthia Petion replied, “Withdraw 5%” and
followed up with “Or tell them to quit f---ing withdrawing.”
158. Since June 2023, U.S. investors have been unable to withdraw their funds from
the NovaTech platform, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.
159. One New York nurse invested a total of $25,000 into NovaTech from March 2022
through March 2023, believing it to be a Christian investment group. She was promised 3%
returns compounded weekly with an option to withdraw her cryptocurrency at any time without
any penalties. She was able to withdraw a few thousand dollars but most of her funds have been
lost.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
47 of 62
48
160. Another New Yorker informed a regulatory agency that his parents invested
$50,000 of their savings into NovaTech in February 2023, were unable to withdraw, and are
facing financial hardship as a result. He stated “it is heartbreaking to see my parents struggle and
worry about their financial future. Seeing my mom cry because of Novatech is something I can
never forget…My father’s friend has also invested over 75K in it and she has been suffering as
well.”
161. A New York investor, a single parent with two children who is also taking care of
his parents, invested approximately $20,000 in NovaTech because it “was deemed to be
operating as an investment bank thus paying its consumers at a rate of 4% interest weekly.” He
had been unable to withdraw any money from NovaTech since November 2022.
162. Another New Yorker invested $131,000 in NovaTech in November 2022, after
learning about the “passive income platform” with 3% weekly ROI from YouTube, Telegram
and Zoom meetings. He stated that the “CEO is a former pastor. I trusted them that’s why I
joined.” He had not been able to withdraw his money from NovaTech.
163. While most investors lost the majority of their investments, Defendants Petion
transferred tens of millions of dollars’ worth of investor cryptocurrency out of NovaTech.
164. Defendant Ciceron invested $7,500 over time and withdrew over $3 million from
NovaTech.
165. Defendant Corbett invested approximately $25,000 over time and withdrew over
$800,000 from NovaTech.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
48 of 62
49
166. Defendant Zizi invested approximately $200,000 over time and withdrew over $3
million from NovaTech.
III. AWS Mining and NovaTech Were Illegal Pyramid Schemes
167. AWS Mining and NovaTech were pyramid schemes, known as chain distributor
schemes under the Martin Act, which are illegal in New York. GBL 359-fff prohibits initiating
and participating in chain distributor schemes. GBL § 359-fff (1) provides that it is “illegal and
prohibited for any person, partnership, corporation…or any agent or employee thereof, to
promote, offer or grant participation in a chain distributor scheme.” GBL § 359-fff (2) defines
“chain distributor scheme” as “a sales device whereby a person, upon condition that he make an
investment, is granted a license or right to solicit or recruit for profit or economic gain one or
more additional persons who are also granted such license or right upon condition of making an
investment and may further perpetuate the chain of persons who are granted such a license…”
The term “investment” under the statute means “any acquisition, for a consideration…of
property…and includes…business opportunities and services.”
GBL § 359-fff (2).
168. Defendants AWS Mining and NovaTech were illegal chain distributor schemes
under GBL § 359-fff (2) and constituted securities under GBL § 359-fff (3). In both schemes,
participants had to turn over property (cryptocurrency) to obtain the right to recruit and when
they signed up new investors who purchased “trading” packages or mining contracts, these
investors received the right to recruit others, and so on. Only investors who had purchased a
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
49 of 62
50
mining contract for AWS Mining or a “trading” package for NovaTech
2
were able to recruit
other investors and receive recruitment bonuses. A purchase of an AWS mining contract or a
NovaTech trading package automatically enabled investors to solicit others.
169. Defendants violated GBL § 359-fff (1) of the Martin Act by promoting, offering,
or granting participation in NovaTech and AWS Mining.
170. Defendants Zizi and Corbett promoted other pyramid schemes as well. Defendant
Zizi promoted a pyramid Ponzi scheme called ZeekRewards, which collapsed in 2012.
Defendant Zizi was one of the top promoters in ZeekRewards with approximately $1.5 million in
net winnings, with a judgment against him of $700,000, which he has “not considered paying.”
171. Defendant Corbett promoted RNetwork and its Revvcard after AWS Mining’s
collapse in June of 2019. Revvcard, a debit card promoted by illegal chain distributor scheme
Digital Vault, was advertised to work with fiat and cryptocurrency, but it never launched, and
investors lost their funds.
IV. Defendants Violated New York State Registration Laws
172. Defendants offered for sale and promoted securities of AWS Mining and
NovaTech without registering with the OAG in violation of registration provisions of the Martin
Act. AWS Mining “mining contracts” and NovaTech “trading packages” were securities under
the Martin Act because, among other things, investors invested cryptocurrency with Defendants
2
An individual who did not want to “trade” but only to recruit investors could purchase an “affiliate
license” from NovaTech for $49. This amount did not go into a trading account and did not earn trading
profits, but merely allowed one to receive payments for recruiting investors.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
50 of 62
51
with the expectation of earning profits from the efforts of Defendants AWS Mining and
NovaTech, respectively.
173. AWS Mining and NovaTech required investments in cryptocurrency. Defendants
lured investors into converting their hard-earned funds into cryptocurrency to invest it with
NovaTech. Investors deposited cryptocurrency, including Tether, Bitcoin, Ether, and Litecoin,
into AWS Mining and NovaTech and received payments from them in cryptocurrencies.
174. Investors deposited cryptocurrency for investment with AWS Mining which
promoted “passive income.” Defendant AWS Mining represented that it pooled investor
cryptocurrency into “mining groups” and used it to mine cryptocurrency. AWS Mining had
absolute discretion over which cryptocurrency to mine, if any, and absolute control over the
success of mining and crypto that it collected from investors. AWS Mining claimed to distribute
monthly mining profits to investors until returns equaled 200% of their original investment.
Accordingly, the AWS Mining’s mining contracts constituted securities under the Martin Act.
175. NovaTech stated that it pooled cryptocurrency deposited by investors for trading.
NovaTech exercised total discretion over investors’ deposits and promised investors consistent
passive income from NovaTech’s trading. Defendants emphasized that NovaTech traders did all
the trading and that investors did not need to have any trading experience. NovaTech announced
and paid purported weekly profits from trading investor cryptocurrency. NovaTech “trading”
packages were securities under the Martin Act.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
51 of 62
52
176. Cryptocurrencies, including those that Defendants recommended investors
purchase for transfer to NovaTech, are commodities under the Martin Act and may also
constitute securities.
177. Under New York State law, a dealer is a person or entity that is engaged in the
business of selling securities to the public within or from New York for its own account and
selling or offering for sale to the public securities issued by it. GBL § 359-e(1)(a).
178. Defendant AWS Mining issued, offered, promoted, and sold mining contracts to
investors in New York. Defendant AWS Mining was a dealer under New York law and issued,
promoted, and sold securities for its own account within the meaning of GBL § 359-e(1)(a).
179. Defendants NovaTech and the Petions issued, offered, promoted, and sold
“trading” packages to investors in New York. At all times, Defendants Petion owned NovaTech
and exercised full control over investor cryptocurrency sent to NovaTech for “trading” packages.
Defendants NovaTech and the Petions were dealers under New York law and issued, promoted
and sold securities for their own account within the meaning of GBL § 359-e(1)(a).
180. A salesperson is a person employed by a dealer for the purpose of representing
them in the sale of securities to or from the public within or from New York. GBL § 359-
e(1)(c). Defendants Cynthia and Eddy Petion, Zizi, Corbett, and Ciceron received payments in
the form of recruitment bonuses for offering for sale to investors mining contracts for AWS
Mining. Defendants Zizi, Corbett, and Ciceron received payments in the form of recruitment
bonuses for offering for sale to investors “trading” packages for NovaTech. Defendants Cynthia
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
52 of 62
53
and Eddy Petion, Zizi, Corbett, and Ciceron were salespersons within the meaning of
GBL § 359-e(1)(c).
181. Defendants Cynthia and Eddy Petion, Zizi, Corbett, and Ciceron acted as
salespersons without successfully completing the required examinations known as the “Series
63” or the “Series 66” that cover securities industry regulations and ethical practices and
obligations.
182. As dealers and salespersons of securities under New York law, Defendants were
required to file a registration statement with the OAG prior to engaging in such conduct. GBL
§ 359-e(3).
183. Defendants were not exempted from the filing requirements.
184. Defendants failed to file registration statements with the OAG prior to engaging
in conduct that required such filing, in violation of GBL § 359-e(3).
185. Each sale, offer to sell AWS Mining and NovaTech securities in New York State
while unregistered is a violation of the Martin Act and a fraudulent practice under GBL § 352.
Defendants’ repeated offer and sale of securities while unregistered also constitutes persistent
fraud and illegality under Executive Law § 63(12).
V. Defendants Failed to Produce Documents and Records Pursuant to OAG’s
Subpoena
186. On October 24, 2023, the OAG served Subpoenas Duces Tecum on Defendant
NovaTech and Defendants Petion, demanding information and documents relevant to OAG’s
investigation of Defendants’ business practices. On October 25, 2023, the OAG additionally
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
53 of 62
54
served Subpoenas Ad Testificandum on Defendants Petion (together with the October 24, 2023,
subpoenas “NovaTech Subpoenas”).
187. The OAG mailed the NovaTech Subpoenas to the address for NovaTech
Advisors, LLC found at sunbiz.org, at 1825 Northwest Corporate Boulevard, #110, Boca Raton,
Florida 33431, which, according to Cynthia Petion, was its “physical address for FL…required to
receive mail, correspondence, file taxes, etc.” OAG also served Subpoenas on New York
Secretary of State as provided in GBL § 352(b) and mailed the Subpoenas to the registered agent
in the State of Florida.
188. Defendants NovaTech and Defendants Petion failed to produce required
information and documents, to appear for testimony, or to otherwise respond to the NovaTech
Subpoenas.
189. Pursuant to the Martin Act, “a person who fails to obey the command of a
subpoena without reasonable cause” is “guilty of a misdemeanor.” GBL § 352(4). A violation
of criminal law is an “illegal act” under Executive Law § 63(12).
190. Pursuant to GBL § 353(1), refusal to comply with the OAG’s subpoena “shall be
prima facie proof that such defendant is or has been engaged in fraudulent practices as set forth
in such application and a permanent injunction may issue from the supreme court without any
further showing by the attorney-general.” Pursuant to GBL § 353(3), upon showing by the OAG
that a fraudulent practice occurred, the OAG may seek restitution obtained by such fraudulent
practice. The Court should grant all relief requested in this OAG Complaint on this basis alone
against Defendants NovaTech and Defendants Petion.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
54 of 62
55
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Martin Act Securities and Commodities Fraud - General Business Law §§ 352 and 353
(As to all Defendants)
191. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the paragraphs above as if fully stated herein.
192. The acts and practices of the Defendants alleged herein violated Article 23-A of
the GBL §§ 352 and 353 in that they constituted fraudulent practices, including a scheme to
defraud, as defined in GBL § 352 et seq.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Martin Act Securities and Commodities Fraud – General Business Law § 352-c
(As to all Defendants)
193. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the paragraphs above as if fully stated herein.
194. The acts and practices of the Defendants alleged herein violated GBL § 352-
c(1)(a), in that they involved the use or employment of a fraud, deception, concealment,
suppression, or false pretense, where said uses or employments were engaged in to induce or
promote the issuance, distribution, exchange, sale, negotiation, or purchase within or from this
state of any securities or commodities.
195. The acts and practices of the Defendants alleged herein violated GBL § 352-
c(1)(b), in that they involved illegal and prohibited acts or practices in the making of promises or
representations as to the future which were beyond reasonable expectation or unwarranted by
existing circumstances where said promises or representations were made to induce or promote
the issuance, distribution, exchange, sale, negotiation, or purchase within or from this State of
any securities or commodities.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
55 of 62
56
196. The acts and practices of the Defendants alleged herein violated GBL § 352-
c(1)(c), in that they involved illegal and prohibited acts or practices in the making of
representations or statements which are false, where Defendant (i) knew the truth; or (ii) with
reasonable effort could have known the truth; or (iii) made no reasonable effort to ascertain the
truth; or (iv) did not have knowledge concerning the representation or statement made, where
said representations were made to induce or promote the issuance, distribution, exchange, sale,
negotiation, or purchase within or from this State of any securities or commodities.
197. The acts and practices of the Defendants alleged herein violated GBL § 352-c(2),
in that Defendants engaged in a device or scheme to obtain money, profit or property by
prohibited means.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Martin Act Failure to Register - General Business Law § 359-e
(As to all Defendants)
198. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the paragraphs above as if fully stated herein.
199. The acts and practices of the Defendants alleged herein violated GBL § 359-e,
insofar as such acts and practices constitute Defendants acting as dealers or salespeople in the
issuance, sale or purchase of, or offer to sell or purchase, securities from or to the public within
or from the state of New York without filing a registration statement with the OAG, also known
as the Department of Law.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
56 of 62
57
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Martin Act Chain Distributor Schemes – General Business Law § 359-fff
(As to all Defendants)
200. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the paragraphs above as if fully stated herein.
201. The acts and practices of Defendants alleged herein violated GBL § 359-fff in that
they engaged in illegal and prohibited acts or practices intended to promote, offer, or grant
participation in chain distributor schemes.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Repeated and Persistent Fraud – Executive Law § 63(12)
(As to all Defendants)
202. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the paragraphs above as if fully stated herein.
203. The acts and practices of the Defendants alleged herein constitute conduct
proscribed by Executive Law § 63(12), in that Defendants engaged in repeated fraudulent acts or
otherwise demonstrated persistent fraud in the carrying on, conducting, or transaction of
business.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Repeated and Persistent Illegality – General Business Law §§ 352 and 353
Executive Law § 63(12)
(As to all Defendants)
204. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the paragraphs above as if fully stated herein.
205. The acts and practices of the Defendants alleged herein constitute conduct
proscribed by Executive Law § 63(12), in that the Defendants engaged in repeated illegal acts in
violation of GBL §§ 352 and 353.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
57 of 62
58
206. Accordingly, Defendants have engaged in repeated and persistent illegality in
violation of Executive Law § 63(12).
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Repeated and Persistent Illegality – General Business Law § 352-c
Executive Law § 63(12)
(As to all Defendants)
207. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the paragraphs above as if fully stated herein.
208. The acts and practices of the Defendants alleged herein constitute conduct
proscribed by Executive Law § 63(12), in that the Defendants engaged in repeated illegal acts in
violation of GBL § 352-c.
209. Accordingly, Defendants have engaged in repeated and persistent illegality in
violation of Executive Law § 63(12).
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Repeated and Persistent Illegality – General Business Law § 359-e
Executive Law § 63(12)
(As to all Defendants)
210. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the paragraphs above as if fully stated herein.
211. The acts and practices of the Defendants alleged herein constitute conduct
proscribed by Executive Law § 63(12), in that the Defendants engaged in repeated illegal acts in
violation of GBL §359-e.
212. Accordingly, Defendants has engaged in repeated and persistent illegality in
violation of Executive Law § 63(12).
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
58 of 62
59
NINETH CAUSE OF ACTION
Repeated and Persistent Illegality – General Business Law § 359-fff
Executive Law § 63(12)
(As to all Defendants)
213. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the paragraphs above as if fully stated herein.
214. The acts and practices of the Defendants alleged herein constitute conduct
proscribed by Executive Law § 63(12), in that the Defendants engaged in repeated illegal acts in
violation of New York General Business Law § 359-fff.
215. Accordingly, Defendants have engaged in repeated and persistent illegality in
violation of Executive Law § 63(12).
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Repeated and Persistent Illegality –
Education Law § 224
Executive Law § 63(12)
(As to Defendants Zizi and Ciceron)
216. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the paragraphs above as if fully stated herein.
217. Education Law § 224 prohibits the use, advertisement, or transaction of business
under the name “university” without possessing a special charter from the legislature or the
regents of the State of New York.
218. Defendants’ Zizi’s and Ciceron’s repeated and persistent use of the name
“university” without possessing a special charter from the legislature or the regents of the State
of New York violates Education Law § 224.
219. The acts and practices of the Defendants Zizi and Ciceron alleged herein
constitute conduct proscribed by Executive Law § 63(12), in that the Defendants engaged in
repeated illegal acts in violation of Education Law § 224.
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
59 of 62
60
220. Accordingly, Defendants Zizi and Ciceron have engaged in repeated and
persistent illegality in violation of Executive Law § 63(12).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands that the Court issue an order and judgment
against Defendants as follows:
A. Permanently enjoining Defendants from violating the Martin Act, Article 23-A of
the General Business Law, and Executive Law § 63(12) and from engaging in the fraudulent,
deceptive, and illegal acts alleged herein;
B. Permanently enjoining Defendants from engaging in any business related to the
issuance, offer, distribution, exchange, promotion, advertisement, negotiation, purchase,
investment advice, or sale of securities or commodities, including any cryptocurrencies or digital
assets, to the public within or from this state;
C. Permanently barring Defendants from promoting, offering, or granting
participation in, or otherwise engaging in pyramid or chain distributor schemes or participating
in any multi-level marketing companies which solicit funds for investment from the public
within or from this state;
D. Directing Defendants to produce all records of all investors and to provide a full
accounting of all payments received from and made to all investors;
E. Permanently enjoining Defendants Cynthia Petion, Eddy Petion, Zizi, Corbett,
and Ciceron from serving as an officer or director of any company doing business in this state;
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
60 of 62
61
F. Directing Defendants to pay damages caused, directly or indirectly, by the
fraudulent and deceptive acts and violations of law alleged herein plus applicable pre-judgment
interest;
G. Directing Defendants to disgorge all amounts or assets obtained in connection
with or as a result of the fraudulent and deceptive acts and violations of law alleged herein;
H. Directing Defendants to pay restitution of all amounts or assets obtained from
investors in connection with the fraudulent and deceptive acts and violations of law alleged
herein;
I. Directing that Defendants pay Plaintiff’s costs and fees;
J. Directing such other equitable relief as may be necessary to redress Defendants’
violations of New York law; and
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
61 of 62
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.
62 of 62
